FURMAN v. SAUERS et al

Filing 28

ORDER AS FOLLOWS: THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD RAPOPORT DATED 4/19/12, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULE D IN PART. PETITIONER'S PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY IS REMANDED TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD FOR SUBMISSION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTAINING AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER ANY OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/29/12. 8/29/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(fb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CERRONE FURMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
DEBRA K. SAUERS, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-4342

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport (Document No. 19, filed April 19,
2012), Petitioner’s Objections to Report and Recommedation [sic] (Document No. 23, filed May 8,
2012), Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Objections to Report and Recommendation (Document
No. 24, filed May 8, 2012), and Respondents’ Supplemental Response to Petitioner’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Document No. 26, filed August 17, 2012), for the
reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated August 29, 2012, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport dated
April 19, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART as follows:
a. That part of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Arnold Rapoport dated April 19, 2012, relating to whether the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County dated February 13, 2009,1 granting petitioner leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal
of the denial of petitioner’s petition for relief pursuant to the Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act
(“PCRA”) tolled the time limit for filing a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1

As set forth in this Court’s Memorandum dated August 29, 2012, the Pennsylvania
Superior Court later vacated the February 13, 2009, order.

§ 2244(d), is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
b. That part of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Arnold Rapoport dated April 19, 2012, relating to whether petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling, is
REJECTED.
2. Petitioner’s Objections to Report and Recommedation [sic] are SUSTAINED IN PART and
OVERRULED IN PART as follows:
a. Petitioner’s objection relating to whether he is entitled to equitable tolling is
SUSTAINED;
b. Petitioner’s objection relating to whether the PCRA court’s grant of leave to file a
nunc pro tunc appeal tolled the time limit for filing a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d), is OVERRULED.
3. Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody is REMANDED to United States Magistrate Judge Arnold for submission of a supplemental
report and recommendation containing an analysis of (1) whether any of petitioner’s claims are
procedurally defaulted, (2) the merits of any of petitioner’s claims that are not procedurally defaulted,
and (3) any other issues deemed appropriate.
BY THE COURT:

____/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois____
JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

2